Okay Ann. To start, I don't get your basic premise which is, I think, that if vegans and animal rights people have their way, most or all domestic animals will no longer be. I simply don't see that.

You are either being obtuse or unable to understand the STATED goals of Animal Rights . In fact leaders within animal rights have stated unequivocally they want domesticated animals to be over and extinct within in one generation. That is a hard nosed approach to their extreme dislike towards domesticated animals who the ARA also claim to be bred in such manners that they should not EXIST. Added to that reality is the factor of what havoc those animals would import over the crops which mankind would have a problem protecting from such newly created wildlife added to the existing wildlife which is often beyond our ability to protect our crops from.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

I think the question to be addressed is why/how the environment is being denuded in the first place

people... people need food so all the land is farmed, people need water so rivers are diverted, people need places to live so "urban sprawl" and acreages eat of the remaining un-farmed land, people need transportation so animal habitats and movement routes are chopped up with un-crossable highways. If you have a pest species of animal, you either kill them or prevent them from breeding... I am doing MY part in human population control by being a virgin... I will never bring a new human into this world

animal-friendly wrote:

...of either zoos or preservation areas .... which would you prefer? What would you like to see happen?

I think posing this question points to my desire to keep as many species from disappearing (including domestic ones). This question was inspired by a documentary I saw called "American Tigers" where about half the living tigers left on Earth are living in private zoos or as private pets (and most in the USA). The only natural areas left for tigers are war zones that keep the humans out and thus keep the tigers from being accused of killing rural people and their animals and thus being shot or poisoned. We need to keep people out of the wild or keep the wild with people in zoos. Because the first of those two is not going to happen with a rapidly growing population and peace being formed in these last untouched wild spaces... the only option is zoos. I knew several people with private zoos... some as first-name basis friends. These people have their lives endangered constantly by animal rights activists... break lines cut, houses lit on fire, poisoned water supplies. We are not talking just a bit of media noise. Zoos have to sometimes move to a different part of the country from animal liberation people obtaining majority numbers on local government positions and putting in bylaws that are designed to shut the zoo down legally. This will never stop so people like me who feel a moral obligation to protect all species from extinction and to educate the public about the need for this goal are stuck on the target end of animal rights activists who often even put pet dogs on their hopes of extinction... to free them from slavery of domestication. I was not posting the question to get on a soap box like I just did but to see some opinions in the grey area between people like me (who advocate zoos and preserving wildlife and all breeds of domestic cattle) and the PeTA or ALF crowd.

I think the question to be addressed is why/how the environment is being denuded in the first place

people... people need food so all the land is farmed, people need water so rivers are diverted, people need places to live so "urban sprawl" and acreages eat of the remaining un-farmed land, people need transportation so animal habitats and movement routes are chopped up with un-crossable highways. If you have a pest species of animal, you either kill them or prevent them from breeding... I am doing MY part in human population control by being a virgin... I will never bring a new human into this world

animal-friendly wrote:

...of either zoos or preservation areas .... which would you prefer? What would you like to see happen?

I think posing this question points to my desire to keep as many species from disappearing (including domestic ones). This question was inspired by a documentary I saw called "American Tigers" where about half the living tigers left on Earth are living in private zoos or as private pets (and most in the USA). The only natural areas left for tigers are war zones that keep the humans out and thus keep the tigers from being accused of killing rural people and their animals and thus being shot or poisoned. We need to keep people out of the wild or keep the wild with people in zoos. Because the first of those two is not going to happen with a rapidly growing population and peace being formed in these last untouched wild spaces... the only option is zoos. I knew several people with private zoos... some as first-name basis friends. These people have their lives endangered constantly by animal rights activists... break lines cut, houses lit on fire, poisoned water supplies. We are not talking just a bit of media noise. Zoos have to sometimes move to a different part of the country from animal liberation people obtaining majority numbers on local government positions and putting in bylaws that are designed to shut the zoo down legally. This will never stop so people like me who feel a moral obligation to protect all species from extinction and to educate the public about the need for this goal are stuck on the target end of animal rights activists who often even put pet dogs on their hopes of extinction... to free them from slavery of domestication. I was not posting the question to get on a soap box like I just did but to see some opinions in the grey area between people like me (who advocate zoos and preserving wildlife and all breeds of domestic cattle) and the PeTA or ALF crowd.

I support your position much more so than PETA or H$U$ Anne as I see your choice will be more likely to protect animals from extinction..

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

I should also add my 4 key solutions (outside of the zoo/exotic pet options and having less babies):1) grow your own food. Almost all lost wildlife land is due to agriculture. This may include raising small herbivore animals such as rabbits, chickens, and guinea pigs as oxygen production and manure helps plants grow sustainably in greenhouses (which double or triple the growing season and can boost productivity of the plants up to 5 times). This also affects a lot of diverted water and water pollution associated with both agriculture and with rain run-off of cities.

2) stay at home. Highways are a big issue in animal species extinctions. This is mostly because smart animals do not cross highways. The others of course show up as road kill. The inbreeding that happens from the isolated populations also kills species. Small roads such as gravel roads are a bit less of a problem but still a problem. 40% of the roads in Canada are in the province of Saskatchewan which only contains 2% of the population. This shows how agriculture needs roads so that reflects point #1. The second biggest use of roads in terms of distance of roads dedicated to a single use is forestry. This brings me to the tree hugger section:

3) stop using wood. This includes all wood products but also, for the safety-conscious... quit destroying old buildings. The new building materials are using wood chips because full sized trees are too slow to grow. These trees are poor habitat for most wildlife. These forests are being protected by killing beavers and stopping forest fires but that results in water tables dropping and causing deserts to form. In other parts of the world, bamboo forests are grown or palm tree crops. Native forests are cut and burned to make room for these new forests. Brazil is getting praise for replacing gasoline with ethanol but the sugar cane crops are grown in recently plundered forest land. One alternative is stuff made with straw as most farmers burn the straw as it is too expensive to do anything else with it and too low in price to bother selling it to make these wood alternatives.

4) I left this to last because it is one that surprises a lot of "environmentalists": move to cities. As I mentioned in my previous post, we have to get people out of wild areas and if you make your own food, that will include grasslands areas too. This means the best places for you to live are places were you do not create new roads, do not scare wildlife with activity, do not convert wild spaces into farmland... in short, where you can walk or bicycle everywhere and put as many humans in as few acres/hectors as possible. The carbon footprint of an apartment dweller is far less then a house owner.

PS. if this sounds like environmentalist concerns... for me it is not but purely to save species from extinction. I have a fairly low concern for stuff like global warming EXCEPT for the loss of habitat. Without being able to stop the world from messing with the environment, at least we can get out of the way of nature trying to find new suitable locations for wildlife species in a new hotter world. They cannot move to farmland.

Okay Ann. To start, I don't get your basic premise which is, I think, that if vegans and animal rights people have their way, most or all domestic animals will no longer be. I simply don't see that.

[color=#BF0000]You are either being obtuse or unable to understand the STATED goals of Animal Rights . In fact leaders within animal rights have stated unequivocally they want domesticated animals to be over and extinct within in one generation. That is a hard nosed approach to their extreme dislike towards domesticated animals who the ARA also claim to be bred in such manners that they should not EXIST.

Well, since I am not generally obtuse (but can't be ruled out as obtuse), maybe I really do not see what the stated goals of AR .... whoever or whatever they are. Who are they? Oh yes, the "leaders". Who are the leaders again? Are they Peta or HSUS or ... ? Who says what? Are these leaders actually saying that they would like domesticated animals .... like cats and dogs ... to be gone in one generation or a hundred or more or less or at all? I haven't really been following Donny so forgive me please ... or maybe I am simply obtuse, as you say.

I think the question to be addressed is why/how the environment is being denuded in the first place

people... people need food so all the land is farmed, people need water so rivers are diverted, people need places to live so "urban sprawl" and acreages eat of the remaining un-farmed land, people need transportation so animal habitats and movement routes are chopped up with un-crossable highways. If you have a pest species of animal, you either kill them or prevent them from breeding...

Quote:

I am doing MY part in human population control by being a virgin... I will never bring a new human into this world

But one can prevent the increasing human population, and not bring another human being into the world, by effectively using birth control. Many of us are not virgins and have also not increased the human population. Even those amongst us who have created pregnancies, and therefore babies/children/offspring ..... have contributed to one offspring rather than two or three or four ....And some people have had lots and lots and lots of 'fun' without ever making even one pregnancy. So I don'i understand the idea of being a virgin in order to do your part. Virginity is, of course, one answer, but is not necessary. It may be for you. Some people are simply not interested in the act of procreation which is uncommon but true and real if it is true and real for them.

Okay Ann. To start, I don't get your basic premise which is, I think, that if vegans and animal rights people have their way, most or all domestic animals will no longer be. I simply don't see that.

[color=#BF0000]You are either being obtuse or unable to understand the STATED goals of Animal Rights . In fact leaders within animal rights have stated unequivocally they want domesticated animals to be over and extinct within in one generation. That is a hard nosed approach to their extreme dislike towards domesticated animals who the ARA also claim to be bred in such manners that they should not EXIST.

Well, since I am not generally obtuse (but can't be ruled out as obtuse), maybe I really do not see what the stated goals of AR .... whoever or whatever they are. Who are they? Oh yes, the "leaders". Who are the leaders again? Are they Peta or HSUS or ... ? Who says what? Are these leaders actually saying that they would like domesticated animals .... like cats and dogs ... to be gone in one generation or a hundred or more or less or at all? I haven't really been following Donny so forgive me please ... or maybe I am simply obtuse, as you say.

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the United States, Animal People, May, 1993.

“Breeders must be eliminated! As long as there is a surplus of companion animals in the concentration camps referred to as “shelters”, and they are killing them because they are homeless, one should not be allowed to produce more for their own amusement and profit. If you know of a breeder in the Los Angeles area, whether commercial or private, legal or illegal, let us know and we will post their name, location, phone number so people can write them letters telling them ‘Don’t Breed or Buy, While Others DIE.’” “Breeders! Let’s get rid of them too!” Campaign on Animal Defense League’s website, September 2, 2003

“It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership.” Elliot Katz, President “In Defense of Animals,” Spring 1997.

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Newsday, 2/21/88.

“I don’t use the word “pet.” I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer “companion animal.” For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), “Just Like Us?” Harper’s, August 1988, p. 50.

“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles–from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

“You don’t have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them … One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild … they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV,” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

“The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats … If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind,” Ingrid Newkirk, founder, president and former national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Animals, May/June 1993

“I openly hope that it [hoof-and-mouth disease] comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment.” Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA founder and president, ABC News interview April 2, 2001.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Are these leaders actually saying that they would like domesticated animals .... like cats and dogs ... to be gone in one generation or a hundred or more or less or at all?

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Newsday, 2/21/88.

“... There would be no pet shops...” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), “Just Like Us?” Harper’s, August 1988, p. 50.

“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals...” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

“The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats …” Ingrid Newkirk, founder, president and former national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Animals, May/June 1993

I edited the quotes to Ingrid as she basically created PeTA and helped create many of the other AR groups. The funny thing is that she has had pet dogs all along... sure they were rescues but it points to the fact that this opposition to domestic animals is a religious belief for them to be followed because they have a moral conviction to do so (and convert the world to their thinking). I am saying with this thread that I too have a moral conviction that clashes with theirs.

Okay Ann. To start, I don't get your basic premise which is, I think, that if vegans and animal rights people have their way, most or all domestic animals will no longer be. I simply don't see that.

Quote:

You are either being obtuse or unable to understand the STATED goals of Animal Rights . In fact leaders within animal rights have stated unequivocally they want domesticated animals to be over and extinct within in one generation. That is a hard nosed approach to their extreme dislike towards domesticated animals who the ARA also claim to be bred in such manners that they should not EXIST.

Quote:

Well, since I am not generally obtuse (but can't be ruled out as obtuse), maybe I really do not see what the stated goals of AR .... whoever or whatever they are. Who are they? Oh yes, the "leaders". Who are the leaders again? Are they Peta or HSUS or ... ? Who says what? Are these leaders actually saying that they would like domesticated animals .... like cats and dogs ... to be gone in one generation or a hundred or more or less or at all? I haven't really been following Donny so forgive me please ... or maybe I am simply obtuse, as you say.

Quote:

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the United States, Animal People, May, 1993.

“Breeders must be eliminated! As long as there is a surplus of companion animals in the concentration camps referred to as “shelters”, and they are killing them because they are homeless, one should not be allowed to produce more for their own amusement and profit. If you know of a breeder in the Los Angeles area, whether commercial or private, legal or illegal, let us know and we will post their name, location, phone number so people can write them letters telling them ‘Don’t Breed or Buy, While Others DIE.’” “Breeders! Let’s get rid of them too!” Campaign on Animal Defense League’s website, September 2, 2003

“It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership.” Elliot Katz, President “In Defense of Animals,” Spring 1997.

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Newsday, 2/21/88.

“I don’t use the word “pet.” I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer “companion animal.” For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), “Just Like Us?” Harper’s, August 1988, p. 50.

“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles–from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

“You don’t have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them … One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild … they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV,” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

“The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats … If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind,” Ingrid Newkirk, founder, president and former national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Animals, May/June 1993

“I openly hope that it [hoof-and-mouth disease] comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment.” Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA founder and president, ABC News interview April 2, 2001.

[color=#FF0000]Those points/quotes of reference have been made many times on this forum & yet some folks would like to pretend such LEADERSHIP has mundane, meaningless goals.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

[quote="Ann Vole"][quote="animal-friendly"]I think the question to be addressed is why/how the environment is being denuded in the first place. Isn't it a question of how we get along?

... people need food so all the land is farmed, people need water so rivers are diverted, people need places to live so "urban sprawl" and acreages eat of the remaining un-farmed land, people need transportation so animal habitats and movement routes are chopped up with un-crossable highways. If you have a pest species of animal, you either kill them or prevent them from breeding...

But Ann, we are already aware of this! Do you need to be "human" in order to know what is right for other species? Who determines what is a 'pest' species? Other species are only pests when they are in the way of so called human progress or aka roads etc. Otherwise they are simply other species.

[color=#800040][quote]I am doing MY part in human population control by being a virgin... I will never bring a new human into this world. I think posing this question points to my desire to keep as many species from disappearing (including domestic ones)

All good .... but people will always bring more people into this world ... and there is no amount of virgin'ing that you can do to prevent it. Period.

I think "unwanted species of plant or animal" could be an acceptable definition of "pest"

Ann Vole wrote:

animal-friendly wrote:

I think the question to be addressed is why/how the environment is being denuded in the first place

people... If you have a pest species of animal, you either kill them or prevent them from breeding... I am doing MY part in human population control by being a virgin... I will never bring a new human into this world

I think you missed that I was referring to humans as being the "pests"... the unwanted species that "denuded" "the environment" "in the first place" (taken from your first question). This is why I went straight into being a virgin... pest control for the pest called "humans".

An example I wanted to mention but changed my mind are a particular subspecies of koalas that live on a small island near Australia. They are endangered and a tourist attraction so they could not kill them but they were breeding too fast and eating all the eucalyptus trees that they require for eating (to the point of killing the trees). What they did instead was to castrate most of the males to slow breeding down to reduce the population to a number that the eucalyptus trees can handle without dying from lack of leaves. Note that a seedling tree takes 2 life-spans of koalas to be big enough to be food for koalas. In this case, the koalas were the pest species in the effort to save that same species from extinction due to lack of trees.

Ann Vole wrote:

If you have a pest species of animal, you either kill them or prevent them from breeding

To save humans, we need less humans or more food resources... we have run out of planet like those koalas have run out of island and these unique trees they can only eat. What I am proposing is to leave more of the planet for wildlife... that means even less planet for human needs... we really need to do both... new food resources and less humans AND keep people and their agriculture in places that are already too damaged or populated by humans to be used by wildlife.